Members of the WEBB gather at Walnut Way with Lindsay Heights residents on Feb. 10 to publicly demand that the state's utility regulators not allow We Energies to charge residential customers for the explosive, unprecedented growth in electricity demand to power hyperscale data centers. (Photo courtesy Walnut Way Conservation Corps.)

Data centers, artificial intelligence and fossil fuels are dominating headlines. Across the  United States, more than $350 billion was invested in AI and data-center infrastructure, with  tens of billions of dollars proposed in Wisconsin. Investment and economic development are  often framed as unequivocal wins, but energy infrastructure is different. If built without  foresight, the consequences will reshape the future. 

Growth is certain; however the balance between positive and negative growth is yet to be  determined. 

I have worked in Wisconsin’s energy sector since 2019, beginning in residential and  commercial solar. Over the years, I’ve seen energy debates around renewable energy become  increasingly politicized, even as their original purpose remains unchanged: to produce reliable  electricity, reduce dependence on fragile infrastructure, and give communities more control  over their energy supply. Yet, the existing industry stakeholders have blocked deployment and  ownership for everyone but themselves. While homeowners, farmers, tribal nations and  small businesses face mounting restrictions on deploying their own power systems, the state  has moved quickly to approve massive new energy loads for data centers. These agreements  are also accompanied by preferential rate structures, infrastructure guarantees and the ability  to negotiate. 

That contradiction should concern all of us. 

Wisconsin residents have grown accustomed to electric rate increases justified by grid  maintenance, system upgrades and long-term reliability. According to federal energy data,  Wisconsin already ranks among the top 15 states for electricity costs, and utilities have  signaled additional increases in the years ahead. At the same time, power reliability has  deteriorated in both rural and urban areas. 

In parts of Milwaukee, aging poles lean precariously, and low-hanging lines form tangled  webs that look untouched for decades. In rural Wisconsin, the impacts are similar. Tribal  nations such as the Sokaogon Chippewa and the Menominee Nation have experienced  long-duration outages lasting days or even weeks, disrupting health care, food systems and  economic activity. These are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of an overstretched  and unevenly maintained grid. 

Against this backdrop, Wisconsin is welcoming some of the most energy-intensive facilities  on the planet. A single large data center can consume as much electricity as a small city,  operating around the clock, every day of the year. The rise of AI only accelerates this demand.  Unlike the rest of the state, these facilities do not proceed without firm assurances of power  availability, reliability, transmission access,and cost certainty. 

Data centers operate under a different set of rules.  

Utilities and regulators are willing to negotiate specialized rate structures, accelerate  infrastructure investments, and prioritize reliability. Meanwhile, everyday ratepayers, who  collectively use far less power and have far less leverage, are asked to shoulder rising costs  and accept declining service quality.  

This is not a free market. Wisconsin’s energy industry has become an unregulated monopoly.  Large utilities control generation, transmission and distribution, and they largely determine  who is allowed to produce power and under what terms. While utilities have invested heavily  in renewable energy they own, they continue to restrict external ownership and  community-scale generation knowing that distributed energy can reduce peak demand,  improve resilience, and lower long-term system costs.  

If utilities can justify new power plants, substations and transmission lines for data centers,  they must also explain why a similar urgency does not apply to grid reliability, ownership  opportunities for distributed energy systems and lower rates for Wisconsin residents. Why is  Wisconsin able to deliver gigawatts of electricity to data centers, yet unable to address  persistent grid failures in communities that have been struggling for decades?  

This moment calls for accountability, not ideology. Wisconsin deserves transparency in how  data center energy deals are structured, who bears the costs of new infrastructure and how  reliability risks are distributed. Ratepayers deserve to know why the largest electricity users  receive the greatest assurances, while households, businesses and communities are told to  accept less while paying more. Economic growth should not come at the expense of affordability,  resilience or fairness. If Wisconsin is going to power the future of AI and digital  infrastructure, it must also protect the people and communities that power Wisconsin itself.  

This energy crisis is not inevitable. It is the result of choices. And those choices will  determine whether Wisconsin’s energy future delivers reliable power for all, or a system  defined by higher costs, more frequent outages and growing divides between communities. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Colorado Republican state Sen. Rod Pelton, left, and Senate President James Coleman, a Democrat, speak during the sixth day of the special legislative session in August 2025. Colorado is among the states using state funds to help residents buy health coverage on Obamacare exchanges. (Photo by Delilah Brumer/Colorado Newsline)

Ten Democratic-leaning states are using their own money to help people buy Obamacare health plans, at least partially replacing the federal tax credits that expired at the end of last year.

The state assistance, some of it offered through programs that existed before the federal subsidies expired, is helping hundreds of thousands of people lower their monthly premium payments, which otherwise would have surged to double or even triple what they were before the expiration of the federal aid. The savings can total hundreds of dollars per month.

But only New Mexico is completely filling the gap left by the expiration of the federal help by offering it to people of all incomes; for most Americans buying Obamacare plans, the end of the federal aid means much higher prices. And New Mexico and the other states that are trying to cushion the blow for their residents will face increasing budget pressures as health care costs continue their inexorable rise.

In addition to the expiration of the federal subsidies, the cost of Obamacare coverage has increased because of other factors, including labor shortages and the rising cost of prescription drugs, driven in part by the growing demand for GLP-1 drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy.

The enhanced federal subsidies were made available by the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021 and later extended through the end of 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act. Designed as a temporary pandemic-era measure, they helped boost the number of people buying health coverage from the insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare’s formal name — from 11.4 million people in 2020 to 24.3 million last year.

The enhanced subsidies were available to everyone, regardless of income. Additional federal aid provided to some of the lowest-income households entirely eliminated premium payments for some people.

Congressional leaders let the subsidies expire on Dec. 31. As of the end of last month, the number of people enrolled in marketplace coverage was down by about 1.2 million compared with last year, according to federal data.

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the expiration of the federal subsidies would increase the number of people without insurance by 4.2 million by 2034.

Under the Affordable Care Act, each state can either use the federal government’s online insurance marketplace, HealthCare.gov, or operate its own state-run exchange. Only the 21 states plus the District of Columbia with state-run marketplaces can offer state-funded tax credits or subsidies, and at least 10 of them (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont and Washington) are doing so.

Matt McGough, a policy analyst at health care research group KFF, said many of the people who buy Obamacare plans “have fallen between the cracks of the health care system.”

“They might not work a job or work enough hours at a job to be eligible for health benefits. They are too young for Medicare. They make too much to be eligible for Medicaid, and they really have no other option but to go to the marketplace,” McGough said.

He warned that relatively healthy people are the ones most likely to forgo marketplace coverage rather than pay more for it. That will leave the exchanges with the people who have the greatest health needs, raising costs and premiums for everyone. To avoid that scenario, he said, states “want to be able to keep as many people in the marketplace as possible.”

A big commitment in New Mexico

In New Mexico, Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and state lawmakers earlier this year tapped the state’s 5-year-old Health Care Affordability Fund for an additional $17.3 million so they could entirely replace the expired federal subsidies through June 30 for all enrollees, regardless of income.

The vast majority of the 82,400 New Mexicans who buy coverage from the state marketplace are eligible for state help. Perhaps as a result, New Mexico is one of only a handful of states where the number of people buying Obamacare plans has increased this year: Enrollment is up 18% in New Mexico, while there have been single-digit increases in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Texas.

“We feel really great about having come together to really focus on these affordability challenges for New Mexicans, and really proud of the gains that we’ve made in coverage while we’re seeing losses elsewhere,” said Kari Armijo, cabinet secretary for the New Mexico Health Care Authority. She noted that a handful of Republican state lawmakers have joined Democrats in supporting the aid.

The money in New Mexico’s Health Care Affordability Fund comes from a 3.75% surtax levied on insurance companies. When the fund was created, the surtax was expected to generate about $165 million in new revenue annually.

Currently, the state uses nearly half of the revenue from the surtax to fund other parts of its budget. But the New Mexico House earlier this month approved a bill that would gradually increase the portion of the surtax allocated to the Health Care Affordability Fund, from the current 55% to 100% in 2028.

Legislative financial analysts recently questioned the long-term sustainability of that approach. Armijo acknowledged that continuing to replace the expired federal subsidies “will deplete the fund over time.”

“It is a pretty substantial amount of money, and it is going to strain the programs that we can provide with that funding,” Armijo said.

Paul Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank in New Mexico, said the state is “flush with oil and gas money” now, enabling it to “spend money in ways that don’t make a great deal of sense for the population as a whole and instead benefits a small sliver of relatively well-off New Mexicans.”

Gessing said the state should focus on reducing health care spending by recruiting and retaining more doctors and nurses to lessen its shortage of providers and by overhauling medical malpractice laws.

“I don’t think the state should make it a practice to use state funds to fill in the gap when federal funding is shifted or eliminated,” Gessing said.

Other states

In California, where 1.9 million people were enrolled on the state’s exchange in 2025, enrollment is already down by 32% from last year, according to state figures.

The state has opted this year to spend $190 million to fully replace the lost federal subsidies for people earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level ($23,940 for an individual), and partially replace them for people making between 150% and 165% of the federal poverty level — just above eligibility for Medicaid in the state. About 390,000 enrollees are receiving the state-based subsidies this year.

Like New Mexico, California in 2021 created a Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, funded through general revenue and penalties some people have to pay when they file their taxes.

The state budget Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed last month envisions a “modest projected deficit” of $2.9 billion for fiscal year 2026-2027, but that could grow to $22 billion the next year. California has a total annual budget of about $350 billion.

“Any amount of money that you can put into affordability is meaningful,” said Jessica Altman, executive director of California’s marketplace. “Thinking about those trade-offs is a challenging conversation, but an important one at the state level.”

In Colorado, the state is offering financial help through a new program called the Colorado Premium Assistance program. It came together during an August 2025 special session, when Colorado lawmakers approved up to $110 million this year to partially replace the federal subsidies. Help will be available to anyone making between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty level, or between $43,890 and $132,000 for a family of four.

“It is clear that this is a value for Coloradans. And having a state based marketplace like we do in Colorado, it really allows us to develop state-specific solutions and have our policies and changes driven by the needs of the people who live here,” said Nina Schwartz, chief policy and external affairs officer for Colorado’s marketplace.

Schwartz emphasized, however, that the state help won’t entirely replace the expired federal aid, and that as a result, the number of people buying coverage on the exchange is declining. Cancellations are up 83% compared with last year.

“We’re seeing an increase in the number of cancellations, with the number of people nearly doubling who canceled their plans during open enrollment compared to last year,” she said.

Other states also are opting for limited assistance. Connecticut, for example, is offering aid to households with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level, and the state announced it would spend $115 million in 2026 to partially offset the expiration of the federal subsidies.

Massachusetts has set aside $250 million to enhance its existing state subsidy program, helping to keep around 270,000 enrollees with incomes below 400% of the federal poverty level enrolled with stable premiums. As of early January, around 25,000 people in Massachusetts had already canceled their marketplace plans.

Maryland has a new premium assistance program that fully replaces the federal aid for enrollees earning below 200% of the federal poverty level and partly replaces it for those earning between 200% and 400% of the federal poverty level. Since last year, New York has offered help to marketplace enrollees with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level. And since 2023, Washington has offered state subsidies to anyone earning below 250% of the federal poverty level.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org. 

An oak savannah in southern Dane County that the Badgerland Foundation is working to conserve using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

The broadly popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program is on life support after Wisconsin Senate Republicans canceled a vote on a GOP-authored bill to extend the program during the body’s floor session Wednesday. 

For nearly four decades, the program has allowed the state Department of Natural Resources to support the acquisition of land for conservation purposes. The program is set to expire June 30 when its funding runs out. 

Lawmakers have been working for nearly a year to reach an agreement on an extension. A Knowles-Nelson extension in Gov. Tony Evers’ proposed budget last year was stripped out by Republicans and a Democratic-authored bill supported by all 60 legislative Democrats has languished in a Republican-controlled committee. 

In recent years, a handful of legislative Republicans have become increasingly hostile to the stewardship program, complaining that it has taken too much land off local property tax rolls in the northern part of the state and that a state Supreme Court decision last year removed the Legislature’s oversight authority over the program’s spending. 

In January, Assembly Republicans passed a bill that would extend the program without any funding for land acquisition. With the Assembly holding its final scheduled floor session of the year on Thursday, the Senate’s failure to hold a vote on its version of the bill Wednesday means it’s unlikely a bill will make it to Evers’ desk. 

Democrats have said they won’t support a version of the bill that ends land acquisition under the program. 

In recent weeks, Republicans have begun to lay the groundwork for claiming that any failure to extend the program would be the Democrats’ fault. 

But Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), the author of the Republican proposal, said Wednesday after the bill was dropped from the schedule that the Senate needs to pass a version of the bill with 17 Republican votes.  With supporters and opponents of the program divided within the Republican caucus, advocates for the program have said for months it’s been clear that any version of stewardship extension would require bipartisan support. 

“This has been one of these bills that’s been very difficult to thread the needle on,” Testin said after the Wednesday floor session. “So it’s been sort of a tug of war, you do X, Y, and Z on one provision of the bill. You have members that raise concerns, and if you do X, Y and Z a different way, they’ve got concerns as well.”

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), who wrote the Democratic proposal and has been involved in legislative negotiations over the program, said it’s disingenuous for Republicans to point fingers at Democrats, when Democrats are united in their support for the program and have tried to compromise. 

The initial bill proposed by Habush Sinykin included a provision to provide independent oversight of the program as a response to Republican concerns and in recent days offered a “stop gap” compromise of extending the program for one year with $5-6 million in land acquisition funding — about $10 million less than budgeted currently. On the floor on Wednesday, Democrats attempted to force a vote on a motion that would have extended the program for one year at current funding levels. 

“Their efforts to try to cast blame or aspersions on the Democrats when it is apparent that they have too many members of their caucus who are strongly opposed to this program … they have not been shy or reticent about voicing publicly strong opposition to the continuity of this program,” Habush Sinykin said. “So it takes not just a lot of nerve, but a questionable honesty, to try to pin this on Democrats.” 

Habush Sinykin said the Assembly version of the bill was “not even tempting” because it doesn’t include any land acquisition funds. 

“What they are looking for and needing are more Democratic votes, which is a big responsibility, because we care about the integrity of the program,” she said. “So you don’t want to give votes for something that doesn’t have value and isn’t true to the purpose.”

“Everyone in the building knows, and many outside the building know, that Republicans don’t like Knowles-Nelson,” she continued, “that they can’t get it done in their caucus.”

Baylor Spears contributed reporting to this story.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Marathon Petroleum Company’s Salt Lake City Refinery in Salt Lake City on Jan. 3, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)

A coalition of public health and environmental groups filed a suit Wednesday challenging the Trump administration’s recent finding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not regulate climate-warming greenhouse gases.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and President Donald Trump announced last week the administration was finalizing a repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, which declared the agency could regulate greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from vehicle emissions, because climate change posed a danger to human health.

The 17 groups who jointly filed the suit Wednesday include the American Public Health Association, Clean Wisconsin, Union of Concerned Scientists, Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense Council. 

‘Required by law to protect us’

Their two-page filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not detail any of the groups’ legal arguments against the repeal, but lawyers and officials for the groups said the EPA was legally bound, under the Clean Air Act, to protect people from greenhouse gas emissions. 

“They are required by law to protect us from air pollution that endangers public health and welfare,” Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the CEO of the American Public Health Association, said on a video call with reporters. “And that includes greenhouse gases that are driving climate change.”

The law requires challenges to new nationwide agency actions on emissions to be filed in the D.C. Circuit.

In an email, EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch said the agency had reviewed the endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act and related court decisions, including “robust analysis” of recent Supreme Court decisions. The agency concluded it did not have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

“Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be,” Hirsch said. 

“In the absence of such authority, the Endangerment Finding is not valid, and EPA cannot retain the regulations that resulted from it,” she continued. “EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress, including under the CAA. Congress never intended to give EPA authority to impose GHG regulations for cars and trucks.”

Emissions are pollutants, opponents say

But the groups said the EPA’s reasoning ignored that the agency has long regulated emissions as part of its mandate to protect clear air. The omission of the term “greenhouse gases” in the Clean Air Act is “a manufactured problem” by opponents of regulation, Hana Vizcarra, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, said.

“The Clean Air Act was intended to cover air pollutants, full stop. Air pollutants include greenhouse gases,” she said. “This argument that Congress needs to do something different to be able to regulate greenhouse gases… it’s just a way to avoid the issue and avoid regulation.”

The matter is “settled law,” the groups said, as federal courts have affirmed and reaffirmed the EPA’s power to regulate emissions.

A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case established that the Clean Air Act “was unambiguous” in authorizing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at NRDC, said. 

That decision led to the EPA’s so-called endangerment finding two years later, during President Barack Obama’s first year in office.

Attorneys general likely to weigh in

Wednesday’s challenge will likely be consolidated with other challenges, including those from “blue-state attorneys general,” Hankins said.

In the announcement last week, Trump said the endangerment finding, and the tailpipe emissions standards that relied on it, had dragged down the automotive sector and the broader economy nationwide.

The administration has said the move will save Americans more than $1 trillion by reducing regulations.

The repeal’s opponents, though, said Wednesday that projection ignored more than $100 billion in additional costs American drivers would see if fuel efficiency standards are relaxed or the enormous public health costs from worsened air quality and increased climate risks.

Gov. Tony Evers called on lawmakers to keep working this year in his final State of the State address. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Gov. Tony Evers urged Wisconsin lawmakers to work through the rest of this year during his final State of the State address Tuesday evening — rejecting a Republican tax cut and school funding proposal and calling for lawmakers to invest in schools. 

Evers, who decided not to run for a third term in office, told lawmakers that the people of Wisconsin are expecting them to get more done this year. The Assembly plans on wrapping up its work for the session by the end of the week. The state Senate plans to work into March, but with the Assembly’s self-imposed deadline, this month is the last chance to pass bills that could get to Evers’ desk before the next legislative session.

“I know many lawmakers are antsy to end the legislative session and pack up to get back on the campaign trail — by the way, if anyone running wants advice from someone who’s won five statewide elections, let me know,” Evers said. “I know many of you are up for election, but here’s the deal: after years of delivering historic, bipartisan wins for our state, Wisconsinites have high expectations for the work we can do together over the next 10 months.” 

Wisconsin’s upcoming 2026 November elections will produce a new governor and could lead to new leadership in the state Assembly and Senate where the balance of power is at stake.

Republican lawmakers were not enthralled by Evers’ address, shaking their heads when they disagreed, making side comments to their fellow lawmakers and pulling their phones out during portions of the address. Democratic lawmakers stood to applaud throughout the address with some Republican lawmakers joining the applause at times while remaining seated. 

Evers touted a number of his accomplishments in the more than 800 bills he has signed throughout his last seven years in office. He noted that 97% of those bills were bipartisan. 

Some of the accomplishments he highlighted included $2 billion in tax cuts, securing $360 million to support child care in the state improving and repairing over 9,600 miles of roads and over 2,400 bridges across Wisconsin, bolstering support for public defenders and district attorneys and passing a law to ensure education about Hmong and Asian American history in school. 

Evers added that he is not done yet.

At the top of Evers’ to-do list for his final year in office is getting a deal to reduce property taxes and provide schools with additional funding.

Over the last couple of weeks, Evers has been negotiating with lawmakers on how to use the state’s projected $2.5 billion budget surplus.

“I’m hopeful we can continue building upon those efforts this session, including reaching bipartisan agreement on a plan to get meaningful resources to K-12 schools and provide property tax relief, and it must balance these important obligations a heck of a lot better than the plan Republican leaders sent me this week,” Evers said. 

The most recent proposal put together by Republican leaders and delivered to Evers on Sunday included funding for special education and the school levy tax credit to reduce property taxes for local communities. It did not include funding for general school aid.

In the recent state budget, Republican lawmakers did not provide additional state funding to general school aid in part because of their frustration with Evers’ 400-year veto, which extended an annual $325 per pupil school revenue limit increase well beyond the last budget cycle. Without state funding, schools in Wisconsin can only use the authority Evers gave them to increase property taxes. 

“I get Republicans want to blame my 400-year veto for property taxes going up. Why? Politics, of course. Republicans running under fair maps need someone else to blame for failing to fund our schools at the levels I’ve asked them to for about two decades of my life,” Evers said. “Here’s the truth: funding our schools is a responsibility that the state and local partners share. Local property taxes go up when the state fails to do its part to meet its obligation.” 

Evers also noted that his 400-year veto is not an automatic property tax increase, but rather schools opt into exercising the additional authority and if there was additional state aid, then districts would not raise property taxes.

“The Legislature has rejected over $7 billion for K-12 schools that I requested over the last four state budgets,” he said. “If lawmakers want to have an honest conversation about property taxes, start there.”

“We have a constitutional obligation to fund our schools in this state,” Evers said. “The Legislature must approve the level of funding necessary to meet the percentages our kids and our schools were promised in the last budget. We can’t afford for lawmakers to lose focus on the future we’ve been working hard to build together just because it’s an election year. I know the Legislature would rather hit the road and take the rest of the year off, but I’m going to ask lawmakers to stick around until our work here is finished.” 

GOP leader wants sit down negotiations

After Evers’ address, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) told reporters that Evers was taking credit for bipartisan work that was only possible because of the Republican-led Legislature. 

Ahead of the address, Vos made similar comments to reporters, saying that “every success that Gov. Evers has had on policy has only been because the Legislature worked with him on the vast majority of those things to get them done.” Evers’ two terms in office have been marked by an often contentious relationship with Republicans, who have held the majority in the state Senate and Assembly during his entire tenure. Still, lawmakers and Evers have been able to pass four state budgets and get various bipartisan bills signed into law.

Vos said lawmakers had received a reply from Evers to their property tax  proposal that evening. 

“It sounds like he is willing to draw bright lines in the sand. That is not something I’ve ever found to be productive. You need to be able to sit down and talk about things that are important to both the Legislature, the taxpayers and the governor,” Vos said. “It should not be a ‘my way or the highway’ type negotiation.”

Vos said he was disappointed that Evers hadn’t reached out to speak with lawmakers on Monday or Tuesday, but is optimistic that lawmakers can speak with Evers Wednesday.

“It seems to me we tried very hard to reach in the middle. Now, it’s the governor’s job after a pretty partisan speech to actually figure out how he’s going to get to the middle like we did,” Vos said. 

Vos claimed the GOP plan invests more money into public education than Evers proposed. The GOP plan includes $500 million for property tax relief through the school levy tax credit and $200 million for special education reimbursement. It does not include any money for general school aids.

Evers’ proposal included $200 million for special education funding, $450 million for general school aids to buy out the projected statewide school property tax levy and in exchange, he proposed that Republicans would get $550 million towards the school levy tax credit.

Asked to clarify, Vos said Republicans had not asked for the $550 million for the school levy tax credit.

“We didn’t ask for that. It’s like me saying, you want money for child care? Well, that’s not even part of the discussion,” Vos said.

Democratic lawmakers also called on the Legislature to keep working this year. 

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) criticized Republican lawmakers at a press conference Tuesday morning for planning to “gavel out of session for the next 10 months” at the end of this week, saying they were giving “themselves a vacation while folks in our districts are left wondering how they are going to make ends meet.” She said Evers and Democrats were planning to continue working hard to deliver for the people of Wisconsin.

Other issues on Evers’ to-do list

Evers also laid out several other issues areas he wants addressed in his final year. 

Evers urged lawmakers to send him bills that would codify the Office of Violence Prevention into state law and provide $66 million for the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) programs. 

“Do the right thing and get this done,” Evers said. 

He also announced that the state has plans to partner with the Milwaukee Bucks, the state’s professional basketball team, on a campaign to combat domestic violence. 

Evers also noted his previous attempts to advance gun control measures but didn’t urge Republican lawmakers to do anything this year. 

“There’s no issue Republicans have done less about than guns,” he said. “This much is clear: If Wisconsinites want to get something — anything — done about gun violence, we must elect legislators who will do a damn thing to change it.” 

Evers said that he is also hoping that lawmakers will work to pass a bill to close the Green Bay Correctional Institution. 

“It’s been over a year now, and Republicans have neither enacted my plan nor proposed a plan of their own,” Evers said. “I’m still hopeful we can work together to pass a bipartisan bill this year on comprehensive corrections reform to set an achievable goal for GBCI to close, convert Lincoln Hills, and revamp Waupun.”

On artificial intelligence and data centers, Evers said Wisconsin must “embrace a future where we don’t have to choose between mitigating climate change and protecting our environment or creating good-paying jobs and having a strong economy.”

Evers also urged lawmakers to pass a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program that “both supports land acquisition and management of Wisconsin’s valuable natural resources and public lands,” as well as a bill combating PFAS so the $125 million that was approved over two years ago can be released to Wisconsinites. 

Federal government concerns

The outgoing governor also spoke to “what worries me about our future and keeps me up at night,” focusing on his concerns about actions by the Trump administration. 

Evers said he is worried about the “reckless decisions being made in Washington,” saying he thinks they “will have disastrous consequences for Wisconsinites, taxpayers and our state budget moving forward.” He said he is also worried about federal workers who have been laid off. 

According to WPR, 2,4000 federal workers in Wisconsin have lost their jobs under the Trump administration. 

“I’m also angry when I think about our neighbors — young kids and families across our state — who aren’t going to school or work or anywhere else, because they’re scared leaving their home may mean their family will be torn apart,” Evers said, referring to fears about aggressive federal immigration enforcement. “I worry about our kids who are being traumatized by violence on social media, in the news, on our streets and in our neighborhoods, and I worry about what all of this means for America’s Dairyland, which has depended on the hard work of immigrants for generations.”

“Wisconsinites are feeling the squeeze due to tariff taxes and erratic trade wars,” Evers continued. “Prices are going up on things like school supplies, groceries, clothes, gas and more.” 

Evers also said he is worried about the effects of the federal tax and spending bill signed by Trump last year. He noted that Wisconsin could face penalties if the state’s payment error rate for the SNAP program doesn’t remain below 6%. 

The Evers administration has estimated that a penalty could cost the state up to $205 million, and that $69 million and 56 additional administrative positions for DHS are needed to ensure that the state’s error rate remains below 6%.

“The sooner the Legislature invests in FoodShare quality control efforts, the more time the state has to keep FoodShare error rates down. It’s pretty simple,” Evers said. “We can save Wisconsin taxpayers potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in penalty fees a year we could have to pay the Trump administration if we don’t. I’m not negotiating with Republicans about a $70 million investment the state must make right now to save Wisconsin taxpayers as much as $200 million in penalty fees later. We’ve been asking for this for months, and it has to get done. If the Legislature fails to provide the funding the state needs, Republicans will be to blame for the penalty fees taxpayers will be forced to pay.”

Evers also announced that he plans to sign an executive order to have Wisconsin join the World Health Organization’s Global Response Network. 

Wants constitutional amendment on nonpartisan redistricting 

Evers said he plans to call a special session in the spring to pass a constitutional amendment banning partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin’s current legislative maps were adopted by the Republican-led Legislature and Evers after a state Supreme Court decision found that the previous maps were unconstitutional. The maps have made  Wisconsin’s legislative races newly competitive. However, lawmakers did not change the map drawing process. 

“Wisconsin is as purple as ever, but we’ve shown we can put politics aside and work together to get good things done… A big part of that is the fact that, today, lawmakers are elected under the fair maps I signed into law.  But here’s the problem, Wisconsin: New maps are redrawn every 10 years,” Evers said, adding that without a nonpartisan redistricting process there is “no guarantee Wisconsinites will still have fair maps after the next U.S. Census.” 

Evers noted that Republican states, under pressure from the Trump administration, have adopted election maps that seek to further favor Republicans. He said that “as a result, Democratic legislatures have been put in the unthinkable position of having to respond by trying to restore balance to our elections.” 

“Politics could get in the way of creating a nonpartisan redistricting commission that everyone can support, but there’s one thing that we should all be able to agree on, which is that politics should stay out of redistricting from start to finish,” Evers said. 

Constitutional amendments in Wisconsin must pass two consecutive sessions of the Legislature before going to voters for a final vote that decides whether a change is made. They do not require a signature from the governor. 

Vos said he is open to proposals for nonpartisan redistricting, but noted the failure of a previous GOP proposal to implement a nonpartisan redistricting commission.

“Frankly, all the Democrats across the country are rushing the gerrymander. I hope he’s sincere in saying he doesn’t want that, but call me skeptical,” Vos said. 

Evers added that he “won’t hesitate to bring the Legislature into special session later this year in August or September or October.” 

“Heck, I’m old enough to remember when the Legislature was willing to meet in December,” he said. 

“Year of the Neighbor” 

Each year during his State of the State address, Evers has declared an overall theme for the year. For his final year he announced the “Year of the Neighbor.”

“I want us to focus on our Wisconsin values of kindness, respect, empathy, and compassion,” Evers said. “We could all use a good neighbor, and we could all be better neighbors, and we’re going to spend the next year celebrating the neighbors who make Wisconsin the great place it is to call home.” 

Some of the “neighbors” Evers highlighted in his address included “the first responders who answer our call in our darkest hour,” “the librarians who help us find our new favorite book,” “the teachers who comfort, inspire and educate our kids,” “the state worker who helped us find and apply for health care or job training” and the “veteran who served our country.” 

“Wisconsinites are helpers by nature; it’s in our DNA. When things are tough, we roll up our sleeves and get to work. We shovel a driveway or bake a casserole, and we show up for our neighbors,” Evers said. “Whether it’s unpredictable weather or the unpredictable nature of politics, we’re all in this together, and we’re going to get through it together, not by alienating our neighbors, but by getting to know them, by looking out for one another and by maintaining our Wisconsin values of kindness, empathy, compassion and respect.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sen, Jodi Habush Sinykin, left, and Rep. Angela Stroud, both Democrats, provide testimony Tuesday at a public hearing on their bill to regulate data centers, including on their use of electric power. (Screenshot/WisEye)

Data centers and local communities would be barred from working in secret under legislation that received a public hearing before a state Senate committee Tuesday.

The Senate Committee on Utilities, Technology and Tourism also heard testimony on a pair of competing bills, both pitched as ensuring that data centers pay their own way for the electric power they use and controlling how they use water resources.

SB 969 would impose a blanket ban on non-disclosure agreements between data center companies and the municipalities where they’re planning projects.

“Unfortunately, we have witnessed a troubling pattern in Wisconsin and throughout our country — community leaders are signing secrecy deals with big tech companies and their agents to conceal material facts about the development of billion-dollar data centers from the public,” said Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken), the bill’s author, in his testimony on the measure. “These same entities seek to hide vital information about the scope and impacts of their intended developments from the local officials charged with guarding their citizens’ welfare, undermining sound decision-making and eroding confidence in the process.”

The secrecy surrounding a data center project in Menomonie prompted local opposition that led the community’s city council to pass an ordinance in January stopping a developer from advancing the $1.6 billion project.

“This bill is really about trust,” said state Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie), the author of the bill’s Assembly companion. “It makes sure those conversations happen in the open and not behind closed doors.”

A data center industry lobbyist opposed the measure, asserting that a ban on non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, could stall Wisconsin’s emergence as a prime data center location.  

Brad Tietz, the state policy director for the Data Center Coalition, said the industry group has been working with its member businesses “on model frameworks that ensure early and proactive community engagement and transparency while safeguarding sensitive proprietary and security information.”

Non-disclosure agreements are especially important in the early stages of data center site selection, “where a company may be considering multiple sites and has not yet made a final decision,” Tietz told lawmakers. “But to simply put a blanket opposition on NDAs would put Wisconsin at a competitive disadvantage right when it is primed to do exceptionally well in this industry.”

Data center utility costs

The bulk of Tuesday’s hearing focused on two other pieces of legislation, one authored by Democrats and the other by Republicans. Both measures were written with the intent of ensuring that power-hungry data center developments don’t pass off their electricity costs to the rest of the public.

SB 729 is authored by Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) and state Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland). The Assembly companion is AB 722.

“Wisconsin must establish a comprehensive and responsible regulatory framework that protects Wisconsin taxpayers, workers, and our natural resources now and into the future,” Habush Sinykin told the committee. “Yet here’s the rub. Currently, Wisconsin has no statewide regulatory standards governing hyperscale data centers. None.”

Habush Sinykin said that the bill was written in consultation with the state Public Service Commission. It would put data centers in a new class of electric power users, “very large customers,” and require utilities serving those users to file a rate case for that class every two years.

“I believe that we all have a shared goal of ensuring that the public does not pay for the energy expenses of data centers,” Stroud told the committee. “According to the Public Service Commission, establishing a very large customer class tariff is the most effective tool currently available to ensure that energy-related costs are borne by data centers rather than shifted on to the general public.”

Utilities would also be required to report quarterly their data center users’ energy consumption and sources and make that information public.

Because data centers are also heavy uses of water, the bill requires water utilities to notify the PSC of individual customers that use 25% of the utility’s water volume.

The Habush Sinykin/Stroud bill includes provisions to encourage renewable energy use and the use of union labor. In order to qualify for a sales and use tax exemption from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., the data center must derive at least 70% of its energy from renewables and pay the construction workers the prevailing wage in the region if they aren’t covered by a union contract.

The committee chair, Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), questioned those provisions.

“This bill appears to me as though it’s going to say, ‘Well, you can come here. We understand you bring a massive economic impact, but actually we want more,’” Bradley said. “It’s going to drive them away from the state of Wisconsin and then we’re going to lose out.”

But Stroud said data center developers have been enthusiastic about adopting clean energy.

“We are extending tax credits to the richest companies in the world. It is not a small thing to do that,” Stroud said. “We should be getting a huge benefit. And it would change the conversation, I think, in a lot of these communities if they had access to significant benefits.”

Republicans go in a different direction

The alternative bill — AB 840/SB 843, authored by Rep. Shannon Zimmerman (R-River Falls) and Sen. Romain Quinn (R-Birchwood) — mostly takes different approaches on all of the issues involved. The Assembly version passed that house in January on a mostly party-line vote of 53-44, with two Democrats voting in favor of the legislation and one Republican voting against it.

The bill directs the PSC, in writing its rate-making orders, to ensure that the utility costs of large data centers aren’t passed off to any other customer, but doesn’t offer specific directions on how to do that. It includes language stating that developers must hire Wisconsin workers to the extent possible.

The legislation also would require that any renewable energy facility that primarily serves the load of a large data center be located on the data center property.

“This will improve reliability by reducing dependence on a distant power grid and safeguards our communities from being burdened with large energy projects that exist solely to serve data center facilities elsewhere,” Quinn said.

The bill also requires the water used at a center to be recycled, and includes requirements that data center developers post a bond that can be used to reclaim the property if the project is abandoned before it’s completed.

Earlier, Stroud said the GOP bill’s requirement restricting renewable energy to on-site at data centers would be “a non-starter for many of the companies seeking to locate in our state.”

In his testimony, however, Quinn defended the provision as a safeguard against saddling other customers with the data centers’ energy costs. “I believe we should make it more attractive for data centers to build their own power supply,” he said.

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Gove) asked Quinn why he and Zimmerman didn’t work with Sinykin and Stroud on a common piece of legislation. Quinn replied that the provisions the Democrats prioritized wouldn’t pass in the current Legislature, including the prevailing wage provision and the renewable energy provisions.

During her portion of the hearing, Habush Sinykin said the provision for recycling water in the Republican bill was of interest to her. She also emphasized that lawmakers should work together across the aisle on legislation to address the broader concerns about data centers.

“The Senate is here through March, and the Assembly can be called back as well,” Habush Sinykin said. “I believe it makes sense and the conditions warrant a call for a special session or an extraordinary session, because people in Wisconsin do not want to wait another year or more to have regulation filling this vacuum.”

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, testified that affordability was a top concern for Wisconsin ratepayers.

“Electricity costs are surging at a pace higher than inflation over the past four years,” Content told the committee. “Wisconsin has the second highest electricity rates in the Midwest.”

His organization “recognizes the intent of the authors on both sides to shield customers from higher costs,” Content said. “Our hope and expectation, given that affordability is job one right now, is that lawmakers will work together in the remaining days of the session and across the aisle to take the most workable provisions of both and find common ground on a plan that the governor will sign into law.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The entrance to the Wisconsin Assembly chambers. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill to protect against lawsuits intended to discourage news coverage and quiet speech, as well as measures requiring schools to adopt policies on appropriate communications between staff and students and establishing a definition of antisemitism during a Tuesday floor session.

Assembly lawmakers plan to meet again on Wednesday and Thursday to vote on legislation with the intention of wrapping their work up this legislative session by the end of the week. Lawmakers did not complete votes on every bill they had scheduled before recessing for the State of the State address in the evening. 

Anti-SLAPP legislation passes

AB 701, to protect people from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), passed on a voice vote. It now goes to the Senate for consideration. 

Rep. Jim Piwowarczyk (R-Hubertus), who is the co-founder of the right-wing publication Wisconsin Right Now, said the bill would strengthen protections for free speech and civic participation and ensure that citizens aren’t silenced through “abusive litigation.” 

“The bill creates a clear, efficient process for courts to quickly dismiss lawsuits that target protected speech or participation in government proceedings. It requires a prompt hearing and stays constant discovery while the motion is pending. It also allows prevailing parties to recover attorney fees,” Piwowarczyk said. “These protections help prevent the chilling effect prolonged and expensive litigation can have on free expression.”

The bill is based on model legislation developed by the nonprofit Uniform Law Commission. 

“It’s a legal tactic … designed to punish someone through stressful, time consuming and expensive litigation,” Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) said about SLAPP legislation on the floor, adding that these types of lawsuits target people “simply because they choose to exercise their First Amendment rights to speak.” 

“It’s overdue that an anti-SLAPP statute be added to Wisconsin laws. We need to protect our citizens’ First Amendment rights and protect those rights from legal retribution,” Hysell said. 

School communication policies

Lawmakers concurred in SB 673 in a 92-7 vote. It would require public school districts and private schools to adopt policies related to appropriate communications between staff and students. The bill will now go to Gov. Tony Evers for consideration. 

Schools would need to adopt new policies by Sept. 1, 2026 under the bill. 

The bill is one of several that lawmakers introduced in reaction to a November report from the CapTimes that found over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023.

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said the bill would protect staff and students. The bill includes requirements that the policies include standards for appropriate content and appropriate methods of communication as well as training in identifying, preventing and reporting grooming and professional boundary violations.

The bill, Nedweski said, will protect students from “potentially predatory behavior with clear proactive protections, while also protecting well-intentioned employees who work every day with integrity and professionalism — protecting them from finding themselves in compromising situations where a misunderstanding or a false allegation could cause serious reputational harm.” 

The bill also requires that policies include consequences for employees or volunteers who violate the rules.

Private schools were included through an amendment to the bill. 

“As a parent of two public school kids, we should be doing whatever we can to make sure that our kids are safe in schools,” Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona). said. “One of the most troubling things we heard in the series of legislative hearings on this topic is that kids who were in private schools are less safe than those who are in public schools. That’s because educators in private schools are not required to be licensed.” 

Antisemitism definition

AB 446 passed 66-33 with 11 Democrats joining Republicans in favor. The controversial bill would codify the definition for antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. It states that antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The bill would require local and state governmental agencies to consider the IHRA definition and its examples when investigating allegations of racial, religious or ethnic discrimination.

Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee) said he was concerned that the bill would infringe on people’s First Amendment rights. 

“Many Jewish and Muslim work groups have come together to use this definition to establish a framework to help understand what antisemitism is,” Moore Omokunde said. But, he added, the intention was not for the definition to be codified into law.

Moore Omokunde said he is worried that the bill could be used to punish people for speaking out against  the actions of the Israeli government.

Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison), who is Jewish, said she was frustrated with the opposition to the bill. 

“Antisemitism is real. We hear again and again, particularly since October 7th, that when acts of antisemitism occur, they’re not really antisemitic,” Subeck said. “I don’t spend a lot of time when somebody tells me about an act of homophobia, I don’t debate whether it was really homophobic. When somebody who has been a victim of bias, discrimination and worse, tells me what happens to them, I believe it.”

Subeck said the bill is the Legislature’s opportunity to take a “firm stand” against antisemitism.

The bill is now in the Senate.

The Assembly also passed a bill that would prohibit people from serving as a state Supreme Court justice or as a judge of a court of record after the age of 75; AB 640 passed on a 54-45 vote along party lines. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Research shows that children benefit from after-school programs, but four in five Wisconsin children are missing out. | Photo of girl on playground by Tang Ming Tung/Getty Images

I have visited many after-school and summer programs across Wisconsin, from large urban sites to small rural schools, and what I’ve seen has stayed with me. I’ve watched students immersed in creative writing, acting and robotics. I’ve observed staff working one-on-one with kids navigating intense emotional challenges. And I’ve seen the smiles on middle schoolers’ faces as they reconnect with trusted mentors at the end of the school day. These programs are not “extras”; they provide crucial support to kids, families, and entire communities.

The access gap

And yet, for far too many Wisconsin families, these opportunities remain out of reach. According to the latest America After 3PM report, nearly 275,000 Wisconsin children who would participate in after-school programs are not enrolled because none are available. Four in five children who could benefit from these supports are missing out. Parents cite cost, lack of transportation, and a simple lack of local programming as the biggest barriers.

The benefits are clear

The impact of these programs is undeniable. Parents overwhelmingly rate their children’s after-school programs as excellent or very good, reporting that they keep kids safe, build social skills, and support mental wellness. Research in Wisconsin shows that students who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to report anxiety or depression and more likely to feel a sense of belonging.

Out-of-school time programs often provide the space for deep, long-term mentoring, a powerful protective factor in a young person’s life. While teachers are often stretched thin during the academic day, out-of-school time  staff can focus on the relational side of development.

The cost of instability

When funding is unstable, it undermines the very connections that make these programs transformative. Recently, a Boys & Girls Club director shared the human cost of budget constraints: they were forced to reduce a veteran staff member to part-time. This didn’t just trim a budget; it severed a multi-year mentorship. When that bond was broken, several youths stopped attending entirely.

Wisconsin lags behind national trends

Across the country, after-school and summer programs are increasingly viewed as essential to youth development. Twenty-seven states provide dedicated state funding for these programs; Wisconsin provides none. States as different as Alabama and Texas recognize that federal funding alone is not enough. So do our  Midwestern neighbors.

• Minnesota and Illinois have invested in these programs for years.
• Michigan established a $73 million grant program to expand before-school, after-school, and summer learning statewide.
• Pennsylvania created the $11.5 million Building Opportunity through Out-of-School Time (BOOST) program.

The opportunity to act

Public support for these programs is strong and bipartisan. Families across Wisconsin want safe, enriching opportunities for their children. With a significant budget surplus, Wisconsin is uniquely positioned to invest in its future.

State leaders should view out-of-school programming as a foundation for safety, mental health, and long-term economic opportunity. We have the resources; now we need the will. By committing to consistent state funding, we can ensure that every young person in Wisconsin has a place to belong when the school bell rings.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Eau Claire County Government Center | Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner

This story was updated at 10 a.m. Wedensday with comments from Sheriff Riewestahl

Eau Claire County Sheriff Dave Riewestahl announced Tuesday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents had detained four individuals, including one at a construction site in the city of Altoona and three others who fled and barricaded themselves in a garage in the town of Washington.

Riewestahl said his office was contacted by ICE agents who said they would be at a construction site in the city of Altoona, near the city of Eau Claire, to arrest a suspect who had allegedly assaulted a law enforcement officer.

After agents attempted  to arrest the suspect, Riewestahl said four individuals fled the site, and one was apprehended. The sheriff did not specify if the individual detained was the individual ICE was seeking.

The three who fled the scene entered a residence in the town of Washington, confronted a homeowner, then went into the garage. The homeowner then locked the door between the house and the garage.

Riewestahl said his office was called to address a criminal trespass to a dwelling, and then county deputies requested assistance by the city of Altoona police.

Upon the request of the homeowner, the sheriff said, his officers entered the home and attempted to gain voluntary compliance with the three individuals in the garage, but when verbal requests failed, the officers used pepperballs and the three surrendered.

Riewestahl said the three individuals who had trespassed at the town of Washington home were turned over to ICE agents. None of the four taken into ICE’s custody were detained at the Eau Claire County Jail.

“The reason the three were not detained locally is because the homeowner did not want to pursue criminal charges,” the sheriff told the Examiner. “So we did not do that. In talking with ICE, they said they had the authority to take them in custody for immigration activity, so we turned them over to immigration and immigration took all four of those individuals.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar speaks at a Feb. 17 forum at the Marquette University law school. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Maria Lazar says she wants disagreements on the Court to be more respectful. 

At a Tuesday forum hosted by the Marquette University School of Law, Lazar attempted to distance herself from the highly politicized Supreme Court campaigns of recent years, painting herself as an independent judge who, while leaning more conservative than the Court’s current liberal majority, wants to just follow the law. 

However, since her election to the state’s District Two Court of Appeals, Lazar has been a reliably conservative vote on the reliably conservative appellate panel — including a case in which she sided with election deniers attempting to gain access to confidential voter information. Lazar’s campaign has also received endorsements and financial support from high profile Republicans. 

But she says she’s never been a member of a political party, contrasting herself with her opponent, Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, who was previously a Democratic member of the state Assembly. State Supreme Court races are nominally nonpartisan, but both political parties have been heavily involved in supporting their preferred candidates in recent years.  

“I am the one on my court that sort of solves the disputes, and I think that on the Supreme Court I would be the same way,” she said. “I know that it would be 3-4, and I know that I’d be in the minority with the more conservative leaning than liberal leaning, and I get that. But the decisions aren’t all 4-to-3. I mean, sometimes they’re 7-0 or 6-1, and I just think that I would bring a level of collegiality, a level of really hard dedication and work.” 

Since the liberal wing of the Court gained the majority with the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz in 2023, the Court’s conservatives — most notably Justice Annette Ziegler and the outgoing Justice Rebecca Bradley — have frequently lobbed personal attacks at the majority in their published opinions, accusing the majority of being partisan lackeys for the Democratic party. 

Lazar said she doesn’t think the Court should work that way. 

“But some of the opinions written by our Court right now, the differences that are going on on that bench, there’s such a level of dissatisfaction with each other and personal animus that when you read those dissents, you say, how can you write something that personal and mean and then go and work the next day and sit across from that person and say, ‘Let’s talk about the next appeal?’” she said. 

Despite her efforts to paint herself as a moderate, Lazar has occasionally shared her agreement with conservative beliefs on abortion. As an attorney for the state Department of Justice under Gov. Scott Walker, Lazar defended Act 10, the law that repealed labor rights for public employees, and argued in favor of gerrymandered maps Republicans drew in 2011, locking in disproportionate GOP legislative majorities. 

“I would never be on that Court to be a firebrand,” Lazar said Tuesday. “I would be on that Court to stand up for what I believe in and what I believe the law says.” 

At the forum, Lazar said she can’t share with voters how she would decide hypothetical cases, but she can share “what I believe in and what I stand for.” The remark closely mirrors statements Protasiewicz made about her political beliefs during her 2023 campaign. Those remarks have followed Protasiewicz onto the bench, with Republicans often raising them to demand that she recuse herself from controversial cases. 

On her judicial philosophy, Lazar said she’s “an originalist with a slight tinge of textualism.” 

Originalism is a legal theory that emerged in the 1980s and has become the dominant ideology of conservative justices across the country. Under the theory, judges argue that laws should be interpreted through the intent and context of the law when it was written — attempting to glean the motivations of the country’s constitutional framers 250 years after the fact. Critics argue that originalists often use flawed historical analysis. 

But at the forum, Lazar gave a different meaning to originalism. 

“Originalist means that if you get the statute or the law or the constitutional amendment or whatever it is, you look at it first, and if you can’t answer the question, which you probably can’t, because why is it in front of your court if it’s so obvious? So you look at it, and then you look at headings. You look at statutes around it, you look at other statutes in the law. You start looking around. And that’s originalism. You’re looking at the words as they’re written,” she said. 

Lazar said that trying to determine the intent of legislators gets dangerous. 

“Now, some judicial philosophies go all the way out. And they look at everything, what people say when they write the laws, what their intent was, and that’s a little dangerous,” she said. “To me, that’s judicial activism, because I see judges and justices who get to the end result in their mind and then find a way to get there. That’s not the proper way to look at the law, and that’s not what we do. We don’t legislate on the bench. We’re not activists. We don’t have agendas.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr. at an encampment dubbed "Resurrection City," at the close of the Poor People's March at the National Mall in Washington D.C., in May 1968. (Photo by Pix/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Tributes poured in across the country for the revered civil rights figure the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr., who died Tuesday morning at 84.

The two-time Democratic presidential hopeful and Greenville, South Carolina, native died peacefully, surrounded by his kin, according to his family. 

Jackson, who was active in the civil rights movement as a college student, worked alongside the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as a young adult before King’s 1968 assassination.

Leading his own political movement, Jackson became known for his populist message, charismatic delivery and organizing prowess that elevated the role and influence of Black political leaders and helped shape the modern Democratic Party.

“Our father was a servant leader — not only to our family, but to the oppressed, the voiceless, and the overlooked around the world,” Jackson’s family said in a statement. 

“We shared him with the world, and in return, the world became part of our extended family,” his family added. “His unwavering belief in justice, equality, and love uplifted millions, and we ask you to honor his memory by continuing the fight for the values he lived by.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, ordered flags to fly at half-staff Tuesday in Jackson’s honor in the state where he lived and worked for many years.

The family statement did not list a cause of death. Jackson was diagnosed in 2013 with Parkinson’s disease. His diagnosis was updated last year to progressive supranuclear palsy, according to a November statement from the Rainbow PUSH Coalition that Jackson founded.

Tributes from Obama, Trump and Biden

Former President Barack Obama, the first Black president, and his wife, Michelle Obama, said Jackson’s runs for the presidency “laid the foundation” for Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign. And Chicago native Michelle Obama’s “first glimpse of political organizing” was at the Jacksons’ kitchen table, they said.

“From organizing boycotts and sit-ins, to registering millions of voters, to advocating for freedom and democracy around the world, he was relentless in his belief that we are all children of God, deserving of dignity and respect,” they wrote. “Reverend Jackson also created opportunities for generations of African Americans and inspired countless more, including us.”

President Donald Trump paid tribute, dubbing Jackson “a force of nature like few others before him” and a “good man, with lots of personality, grit, and ‘street smarts,’” in a social media post Tuesday.  

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress, honored Jackson as a “legendary voice for the voiceless, powerful civil rights champion and trailblazer extraordinaire,” in a social media post. 

“For decades, while laboring in the vineyards of the community, he inspired us to keep hope alive in the struggle for liberty and justice for all,” the New York Democrat said.

Jeffries expressed gratitude for Jackson’s “incredible service” to the country and “profound sacrifice as the people’s champion.” 

Former President Joe Biden called Jackson “a man of God and of the people. Determined and tenacious. Unafraid of the work to redeem the soul of our Nation.” 

South Carolina legacy

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and longtime friend of Jackson, said the civil rights leader lived a life “defying odds,” in a statement Tuesday.  

“Reverend Jackson showed us that if we all work together – we can bend the arc of the moral universe and change history,” Clyburn said while also pointing to Jackson’s impact on “the nation, Black Americans, and movements to encourage civic participation around the world.” 

U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who is the party’s highest-ranking Black elected official, honored Jackson’s legacy as a leader and role model.

“I don’t have to agree with someone politically to deeply respect the role Jesse Jackson, a South Carolina native, played in uplifting Black voices and inspiring young folks to believe their voices mattered,” Scott wrote on social media. “Those that empower people to stand taller always leave a lasting mark. Rest in peace.”

Jackson’s legacy will live on in the next generation, South Carolina state Sen. Deon Tedder said during a news conference Tuesday. 

“The future generation, they’re picking up that torch, they’re picking up that mantle,” said Tedder, a Democrat, gesturing to students from the state’s historically Black colleges and universities. “The baton has been passed, and now what you see is the future.”

South Carolina state Rep. Hamilton Grant recalled seeing Jackson at the July 9, 2015, signing ceremony of the law that removed the Confederate flag from Statehouse grounds entirely. The flag was taken down the next day, 15 years after it came off the Statehouse dome in a compromise Jackson opposed. 

“For him, being from South Carolina, to see that moment, and me being there in close proximity with him, meant the world to me,” Grant told the South Carolina Daily Gazette. He said Jackson paved the way for Black leaders like him and helped instill in him pride in his identity.

The South Carolina House and Senate held moments of silence in Jackson’s honor Tuesday. 

“There are so many little boys and little girls in South Carolina who can look in the mirror now and say, ‘I am somebody!’ because of this native son,” state Sen. Karl Allen, a Democrat, said.

Shaping Democratic politics

Jackson leaves behind a legacy of political and social justice work that spanned decades. 

He founded the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, a national social justice organization whose name evoked Jackson’s multiracial voter base and the theme of his 1984 Democratic National Convention speech. That organization was formed by a merger between Operation PUSH, which Jackson founded in 1971, and the Rainbow Coalition.

In his 1988 bid for the presidency, Jackson based his campaign in Iowa prior to that state’s presidential caucuses and made the official announcement of his candidacy at a farm in Greenfield on Oct. 10, 1987. 

He finished in fourth place in the caucuses but went on to briefly become the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination by winning a coalition of Black and Latino voters and white liberals, though he ultimately came in second in delegates to Michael Dukakis. 

Similar blocs propelled Obama to victory two decades later and continue to form national Democrats’ base.

Two of Jackson’s sons, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Jonathan Jackson, would represent Illinois in the U.S. House. Jonathan Jackson remains in office after first winning election in 2022.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist from Vermont who endorsed Jackson’s 1988 campaign, said in a Tuesday statement Jackson had been a friend and ally for nearly 40 years and credited Jackson with founding modern progressivism.

“His creation of the Rainbow Coalition, a revolutionary idea at the time, that developed a grassroots movement of working people — Black, white, Latino, Asian-American, Native-American, gay and straight — laid the foundation for the modern progressive movement which is continuing to fight for his vision of economic, racial, social and environmental justice,” Sanders wrote. “Jackson has had a profound impact upon our country. His politics of togetherness and solidarity should guide us going forward.”

‘Equal justice is not inevitable’

Georgia U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat and a Baptist pastor, recalled the influence Jackson’s presidential runs had on a young Warnock growing up in public housing.

“With an eloquence and rhythmic rhetoric all his own, Jesse Jackson reminded America that equal justice is not inevitable,” he said. “It requires vigilance and commitment, and for freedom fighters, sacrifice. His ministry was poetry and spiritual power in the public square. He advanced King’s dream and bent the arc of history closer to justice.”

Jaime Harrison, a former chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Jackson’s 1988 run, which culminated with a speech at the party convention that lauded the United States’ multiracial identity, inspired him.

As “a poor Black kid from South Carolina,” Harrison said he was drawn to Jackson’s command of the convention hall after accumulating more than 1,000 delegates.

“He did not win the nomination,” Harrison wrote. “But he won our imagination.”

Adrian Ashford contributed to this report.

“I think we're right on track… I'm happy to meet this afternoon. I mean, I'm sure the governor is practicing his speech for tonight. There's probably some time in between. There's a lot of opportunities to discuss," Vos said at a press conference Tuesday afternoon. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) are proposing a $2.3 billion package to Gov. Tony Evers Monday that would provide one-time tax rebates and raise special education funding, but wouldn’t deliver any general school aid increases.

“We actually accepted the governor’s challenge where he said, make sure that we have money for schools and we wanted to make sure that there is money for the residents of Wisconsin,” Vos said during a press conference on Tuesday. Vos said lawmakers sent their letter to Evers on Sunday and had yet to hear from Evers as of Tuesday afternoon but they hope to “hear from him today so we could be in negotiations to have a bill passed before we adjourn Friday.”

The proposal comes after LeMahieu said last week he was being left out of negotiations with Vos and Evers. Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback suggested the leaders sit down to discuss the plan. She has also previously said that any bipartisan agreement needs “investments to ensure our K-12 schools receive the resources they need and were promised in the state budget.”

The Assembly plans to meet in a series of marathon floor sessions this week with the goal of wrapping up its work for the session by the end of the week. The state Senate plans to work during March as well, but with the Assembly’s self-imposed deadline, this month is the last chance to pass bills that could get to Evers’ desk before the next legislative session.

Vos said the end of the week deadline could help ensure that Wisconsin politicians act and said it is a “perfect time for us to engage in the good faith negotiations.”

“There’s no reason for the money to sit at Madison longer than necessary so we can have it actually out the door,” Vos said. 

The back and forth on the property tax reduction and school funding package came as Evers, who opted not to run for a third term in office this year, prepared to deliver his final State of the State address Tuesday night.

“I think we’re right on track… I’m happy to meet this afternoon. I mean, I’m sure the governor is practicing his speech for tonight. There’s probably some time in between,” Vos said. “There’s a lot of opportunities to discuss.”

One major piece of the GOP proposal is an income tax rebate of $500 per person and $1,000 for married joint filers at a cost of nearly $1.5 billion in 2026-27. Senate Republicans first proposed the idea last week.

Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said the surplus is proof that “we’ve over taxed our citizens in Wisconsin” and that the rebate checks could help provide some relief to Wisconsinites.

In response to Evers’ priorities, Republican lawmakers in their letter proposed $200 million for special education costs — including $80 million to bring the special education reimbursement rate to 42% in 2026 and $120 million to bring it to 45% in 2027 — in keeping with Evers’ proposal. 

The state budget committed to reimburse school districts for their special education costs at a rate of 42% in 2025-26 and 45% in 2026-27. However, recent estimates have found that the money that lawmakers and Evers set aside in the budget will not be enough to make good on those promises.

Lawmakers did not provide any additional funding for general school aids in the budget, disappointing school leaders and advocates who said schools will continue to struggle with funding difficulties. Republican lawmakers left out increases to general school aid in part because of their frustration with Evers’ 400-year veto, extending an annual $325 per pupil school revenue limit increase well beyond the last budget cycle. Without state funding, however, schools in Wisconsin only have the option to use the authority Evers extended to increase property taxes to the revenue limit increase amount. 

Evers had proposed $450 million in 2027 for general school aid to backfill the $325 per pupil increase school districts will have the option of using — alleviating the potential property tax increases that communities across the state would see again at the end of this year.

Republicans excluded that request from their proposal and instead suggested $500 million for property tax relief through the school levy tax credit. Evers had suggested $550 million for property tax relief through the school levy tax credit. 

The Wisconsin Public Education Network has called putting state money toward the school levy tax credit as opposed to general school aids “irresponsible and unacceptable.” The credit works by using state funds to reduce property tax bills by making payments to counties and municipalities. It does not provide additional revenue to school districts for operations.

In their letter, GOP leaders expressed concerns about the school revenue limit increases, saying that additional state aid would lead to less responsible spending by school districts.

“While we know you believe that your 400-year veto was a way to permanently send increases to schools for the next 400 years, the truth is it creates a strong disincentive for school districts to find efficiencies while creating an increased property tax burden on taxpayers,” the lawmakers said. 

LeMahieu and Vos said that “no amount of funding increase can address the root causes of the education funding problem” and that leaders should be focused on “reform” as opposed to “guaranteed funding to prop up a broken system.” Republican lawmakers have advocated for bills that would encourage school districts to consolidate this session, which Democratic lawmakers and school advocates have criticized.

Lawmakers said they would also support an individual income tax reduction of up to $300 for teacher expenses at an estimated cost of $1.4 million in 2026-27.

Republicans are also seeking to tie the tax relief package to other priority areas. 

Changes made to the Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (SNAP) — known as FoodShare in Wisconsin — in the massive tax cut and spending bill signed by President Donald Trump last year included a penalty, requiring states to pick up some costs if the state’s payment error rate exceeds 6%. Wisconsin officials have estimated a penalty could cost the state up to $205 million.

The Evers administration has said $69 million and 56 additional administrative positions for DHS are needed to ensure that the state’s error rate remains below the 6% error rate.

The lawmakers said they would agree to funding for FoodShare to help keep the error rate low, but asked that positions that have been vacant for 18 months be used instead of providing new positions to the agency. 

In addition to the GOP request related to the positions, Republican lawmakers are also seeking to tie a ban on using SNAP benefits to purchase soda and candy to the legislation.

Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) said the change would ensure SNAP is “utilized for healthy, nutritious foods” and will help make sure that “some of the soda, junk food, and other stuff that our kids and our adults are filling their bodies with” isn’t purchased with the benefits.

The proposal also includes funding to the Department of Military Affairs for disaster assistance including $10 million in 2025-26 for awards no greater than $25,000 per household and $20 million in 2025-26 for grants of up to $50,000 to businesses. 

The money is meant to help Wisconsinites affected by record floods last year after a recent request for disaster assistance was denied by the federal government. 

“We feel that the states have a position here that should have some funds available particularly for businesses where they have no relief available to them at all,” Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) said. 

The total price tag of the proposed package is about $2.3 billion — nearly the amount of the state’s entire estimated budget surplus.

“This is a generous, good-faith attempt to achieve our mutual goals of limiting the property tax impact caused by your misguided 400-year veto, helping families address rising costs and ultimately doing what is best for the people of Wisconsin,” the lawmakers stated in their letter. “Majority caucuses in both houses have agreed to this plan in principle. With the legislative session soon ending, time is of the essence. We both stand ready to meet at your earliest convenience.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks to people who held a prayer vigil and rally on his behalf outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Baltimore, Maryland, on Aug. 25, 2025. Lydia Walther Rodriguez with CASA interprets for him. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Maryland Tuesday barred U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from re-detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia, saying the Trump administration lacks plans to remove him from the United States.

“Respondents have done nothing to show that Abrego Garcia’s continued detention in ICE custody is consistent with due process,” District of Maryland Judge Paula Xinis wrote in her order. 

Tuesday’s order solidifies a temporary decision from Xinis last year that blocked immigration officials from re-detaining him. 

Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran immigrant and longtime Maryland resident whose wrongful deportation to a brutal megaprison last year cast a national spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown. 

His case has remained a focal point for the Trump administration, which brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face criminal charges lodged against him stemming from a traffic stop in Tennessee. 

Those charges were made while Abrego Garcia remained imprisoned in El Salvador, and after the Supreme Court found his deportation unlawful and said the Trump administration should facilitate his return. 

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to those charges of human smuggling and that case continues.

Since Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S., the Trump administration has tried to deport him to a third country, because he has deportation protections from his home country of El Salvador. An immigration judge in 2019 found he would likely face violence if returned there. 

Costa Rica has offered to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee and he has agreed to be removed there, but the Trump administration has tried to deport him to three African countries: Liberia, Eswatini and Uganda.

“Indeed, since Abrego Garcia secured his release from criminal custody in August 2025, Respondents have made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success,” Xinis wrote. 

Xinis added that because the Trump administration has not secured any travel documents for a third country of removal for Abrego Garcia, his detention would be unlawful. The Supreme Court deemed that immigrants cannot be held longer than six months in detention if the federal government is not actively making efforts to remove them. 

“From this, the Court easily concludes that there is no ‘good reason to believe’ removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future,” she wrote.

Abrego Garcia remains in Maryland with his wife, a U.S. citizen, and their three children. 

A vacant warehouse in Kansas City, Mo., was among a growing number of properties across the country planned for conversion into a federal immigration detention center. After weeks of public pressure, the private developer that owns the property announced last week it would not transfer the property to the federal government. (Photo by Kevin Hardy/Stateline)

Outrage erupted last month when Oklahoma City residents learned of plans to convert a vacant warehouse into an immigration processing facility.

Making matters worse was the secrecy of the federal government: City leaders received no communication from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement aside from a mandated disclosure related to historic preservation.

Planning a major development without city input is antithetical to the in-depth, sometimes arcane permitting, planning and zoning process in Oklahoma City. Mayor David Holt, a former Republican state senator, said those land use decisions are among the most crucial of any municipal government.

“For any entity to be able to open a detention center in our communities, potentially next to neighborhoods or schools, regardless of your views on immigration policy or enforcement, is very challenging, because that’s a very high-impact use, and that’s the kind of thing that we would expect to talk about,” he told Stateline.

Communities across the country are facing similar prospects as ICE undertakes a massive expansion fueled in large part by the record $45 billion approved for increased immigration detention by Congress last summer.

During President Donald Trump’s second term, ICE is holding a record number of detainees — more than 70,000 as of January — across its own facilities as well as in contracted local jails and private prisons. ICE documents from last week show plans for acquiring and renovating 16 processing sites that hold up to 1,500 people each and eight detention centers that hold up to 10,000 each, for a total capacity of 92,600 beds. The agency also has plans for some 150 new leases and office expansions across the country, Wired reported.

But ICE’s plans to convert industrial buildings — often warehouses — into new detention facilities have recently faced fierce opposition over humanitarian and economic concerns. From Utah to Texas to Georgia, local governments have sought to block these massive facilities. But with limited legal authority, city and state officials have turned to the court of public opinion to deter private developers and the federal government.

Holt, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a nonpartisan organization representing the more than 1,400 leaders of cities with populations of 30,000 or more, said cities have little legal recourse over the ICE facilities.

“We all have a clear, unified position that really crosses party lines,” he said, “and then we also have a clear understanding of how limited our options are.”

Local leaders often cite the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says federal laws supersede conflicting state laws. That leaves cities with limited influence over projects that could take industrial space off tax rolls, cause new strains on city services and raise serious humanitarian concerns given the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement, including the high-profile killings of two Americans in Minnesota.

Facing bipartisan opposition, the out-of-state owner of the Oklahoma City warehouse ultimately decided to end talks of selling or leasing its warehouse to the federal government.

Similar public pressure has proved effective in reversing plans in several other cities: In late January, a Canadian firm said it would not proceed with a planned sale of a Virginia warehouse after it faced calls for a boycott from Canadian politicians and businesses. In Mississippi, U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker announced the federal government would “look elsewhere” after he spoke with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees ICE. Wicker, a Republican who said he supports immigration enforcement, echoed local economic concerns of a project planned in Byhalia.

Some officials have welcomed the new facilities: Missouri Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Alford has lobbied to land a detention and processing center in his district. And last week, a Maryland county approved a resolution expressing its “full support” for ICE, which is considering purchasing a warehouse there, despite local protests. But most communities have fought them.

Proposed Oklahoma City ICE facility is off the table

Neither DHS nor ICE responded to Stateline’s questions.

Holt said the discussion resembles other local development concerns where NIMBY — short for Not in My Backyard — is a common description of opponents.

“There are plenty of people who are very law-and-order and supporters of law enforcement who don’t want a jail next to their house,” he said. “That’s why it’s got such broad opposition: NIMBYism is the most powerful force sometimes in American politics and nobody wants a detention center next to their home, their business or their school.”

A political and legal fight

After learning that ICE planned to take over a vacant warehouse within its city limits, the Kansas City Council in January swiftly approved a five-year ban on nonmunicipal detention facilities.

Kansas City Council member Andrea Bough, who is also a private development attorney, said the move was both political and legal: The city wanted to send a clear signal opposing ICE facilities, but it also wants to exert its local authority over planning and zoning.

She acknowledged the legal hurdle posed by the supremacy clause, but said there was enough ambiguity over the city’s ability to regulate land use that it may take the issue to the courts.

“Some would say local building codes and zoning regulations do not apply to the federal government,” she said. “That’s something I think we would probably in this situation be willing to fight until we had clear guidance on that.”

Following weeks of pressure, the Kansas City firm that owns the 920,000-square-foot warehouse announced Thursday it was no longer “actively engaged with the U.S. Government or any other prospective purchaser,” the Kansas City Star reported.

Jackson County, which includes portions of Kansas City and the potential detention facility, is considering a similar ban. And across the state line, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, is considering a similar two-year moratorium.

But there are clear limitations on cities’ ability to stop federal projects, said Nestor Davidson, a professor who teaches land use and local government law at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design.

“The federal government can assert immunity from certain state and local laws, including zoning, but it’s complicated, and there are nuances,” he said.

Still, Davidson said some case law has shown cities may have stronger legal footing for zoning rules that are broad and not directly targeted at specific federal government projects.

“I expect to see litigation,” he said. “I think you’re going to see these conversations play out as land use fights often do: both in a legal venue and in a political venue.”

Governments pressured to act

Kansas City’s moratorium has sparked interest among local activists who have pressured elected officials in other cities across the country to act. But many local officials are adamant that federal law ties their hands.

U.S. Reps. Maxwell Frost & Darren Soto tell Kristi Noem not to open ICE facility in Central Florida

In a legal opinion provided to the Orlando City Council in Florida, City Attorney Mayanne Downs rejected “suggestions of actions we can supposedly take,” including moratoriums or using zoning ordinances to block ICE detention centers.

“However well motivated these suggestions are, the law is very clear: ICE, as an agency of our federal government, ICE is immune from any local regulation that interferes in any way with its federal mandate,” Downs wrote to the mayor and city commissioners.

ICE is reportedly considering a new $100 million processing center in southeast Orlando.

The county commission in Orange County, which includes Orlando, discussed the issue last week after receiving similar legal advice. County Commissioner Nicole Wilson said the board is even more constrained because of a recent Florida law limiting certain local governments’ ability to regulate development through 2027.

After being advised against passing a moratorium, the board agreed with Wilson’s follow-up suggestion to draft a resolution expressing its opposition. That will be considered at a future meeting.

“It doesn’t sound like it has the teeth that a moratorium would have, but it essentially gives an awareness that we’ve established a position in opposition to this type of facility in Orange County,” Wilson told Stateline.

An attorney by trade, Wilson said the case law regarding federal projects largely centers on disputes about post offices, which she said is not an appropriate comparison to the massive detention centers currently contemplated.

“A post office has the same water consumption and sewage as probably a lot of other uses,” she said. “If you take a warehouse that was designed for 25,000 widgets and put 15,000 humans in it, you’ve got a very different set of local needs and services that are being used and being taxed and being burdened.”

Working with the feds

Communities have often opposed various other federal projects, such as federal courthouses. But the federal government generally takes the time to listen to local concerns and communicate building plans with communities, said Jason Klumb, a former regional administrator with the U.S. General Services Administration, which manages the federal government’s real estate.

“Generally, GSA has had kind of a good neighbor approach, understanding that they have requirements for federal facilities, and some of those facilities may not always be popular,” said Klumb, an Obama appointee.

But the federal government has not been shy about exerting its constitutional authority.

For example, late last month, GSA announced it would build a new $239 million federal courthouse in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee, despite bipartisan lobbying from city and federal officials for a different site.

“The feds get what the feds want, ultimately,” Klumb said.

In a statement, a GSA spokesperson declined to clarify the agency’s current role in acquiring ICE detention facilities. The statement said the agency was “following all lease procurement procedures in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

Communities have largely been left out of the administration’s immigration decision-making process.

New documents confirm federal government plans to put an ICE facility in Merrimack

“Most of the information we have received on this facility has been through news leaks and the government has not reached out to us yet,” said Paul Micali, the town manager of Merrimack, New Hampshire.

Through an open records request, the ACLU of New Hampshire confirmed that ICE was planning to convert a 43-acre warehouse property in the town of about 28,200.

The federal plans were obtained from the state’s historic preservation office, which came under fire for not informing Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte of ICE’s proposal. That agency’s top official resigned last week after pressure from Ayotte.

Ayotte’s office did not respond to a request for comment. On Thursday, her office released documents detailing how the federal government’s $158 million plan to retrofit the property would create hundreds of long-term jobs for the region.

Testifying before Congress Thursday, an ICE official said the feds will not cancel the project over local concerns.

Micali said the vacant warehouse currently provides about $529,000 in annual property taxes — a substantial sum given the town’s property tax base of about $20 million.

In a letter to Noem, the Town Council said converting the property to a tax-free federal facility would result in higher local taxes for residents. Merrimack is also concerned about potential demands for water, fire and other city services, Micali said, but can’t even begin to assess needs without more details from the feds.

He’s speaking with lawyers about what options, if any, the town may have to assert local zoning power.

“We’re looking at every possibility,” he said.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

New home under construction. (Dan Reynolds Photography/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republicans, Democrats and the White House are methodically, calmly inching toward a common goal: agreeing on a thick package of laws that would do something quickly about slowing housing costs and boosting supply.

There’s no talk of gridlock here. No partisan sniping. Just an under the radar effort to show constituents in an election year that their lawmakers realize there’s a big problem when it comes to buying homes.

That’s why the House earlier this month passed its version of housing reform with only nine dissenting votes. The Senate committee writing similar legislation approved it unanimously last year.

While there are still some obstacles ahead before anything reaches President Donald Trump’s desk, what’s happening is almost a throwback to the days when getting 80% of one’s plan was a big victory, a policy prize to tout back home as midterm elections near.

“There is no silver bullet for fixing this problem,” said Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. 

But, he added, “I think that this bill, this legislation, includes a range of meaningful housing reforms that will add to housing supply and ultimately decrease housing costs.”

Housing shortage 

The House and Senate bills have a common purpose, said Emma Waters, senior policy analyst at Washington’s Bipartisan Policy Center. “Both bills really are pushing to make it easier to build more affordable homes,” she said. 

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., a member of the House Financial Services Committee, explained the House bill this way: “It ensures that every dollar we do spend goes further.”

An analysis by the Zillow Group, a real estate company that researches home prices and trends, last summer found that in 2023, about 1.4 million new homes were added to the housing stock, but there were 1.8 million newly formed families.

As a result, the housing shortage was up to 4.7 million units. Other estimates put it as high as 7 million.

The typical home price in January in the United States was $359,078, up 0.2% from a year earlier, Zillow found. Prices depend on a wide variety of factors, including labor costs, cost of materials, interest rates, supply and demand and more.

What government can do

The congressional legislation tries to help ease supply and stabilize prices as much as the government can at this point. 

The House and Senate bills share several similar provisions. The  Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based research organization, estimated that the House bill includes pieces of at least 43 different House or Senate bills, 27 of which have had bipartisan support.

Under the House plan, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development would update the department’s construction standards for manufactured housing. The Senate bill has similar provisions.

Rep. John Rose, R-Tenn., a housing subcommittee member, explained the problem: “Municipalities across the country have restricted or outright banned homes built on permanent steel chassis. The result has been less construction, higher costs, and fewer opportunities for working families to own where they live.”

The House bill would provide money for “pattern books” for such housing that would feature pre-approved plans that could speed up the approval process.

The legislation would also provide “a lot of provisions to make it easier for state and local governments to reduce regulatory barriers,” said Waters.

The bills would allow money from Community Development Block Grants, which help fund neighborhood projects, to better support housing production.

The Senate bill would reward CDBG recipients that have, unrelated to their other CDBG projects, increased their housing production in the previous year. 

As a reward for building more housing in the previous year, those jurisdictions would receive additional CDBG funding, but there are still restrictions on how those funds can be used. 

The House bill, though, would change the restriction so that CDBG money could be used for housing construction.

Help for consumers

Housing experts believe a reason landlords balk is they’re reluctant to endure the government’s inspection process; the bills would streamline that process. Landlords would get incentives to accept tenants with rent vouchers.

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which aids state and local efforts to provide housing for lower income families, would also get a makeover of sorts in the bills. 

For instance, the House bill says environmental impact statements would no longer be needed for many projects, and it would be easier to tap money from the HOME budget.

Also likely to help consumers: making it easier for banks, usually community institutions that focus on local needs, to invest in more affordable housing. The House bill would raise the public investment welfare cap, allowing more such investments.

Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., was enthusiastic about this provision. “Our bill helps banks access stable deposit funding, streamlines the exam process that’s tailored particularly for our vital community banks, and helps promote more community banks to do what they do best, lend locally and support their communities,” said Hill, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, in a statement.

What’s ahead 

The banking provision is one of the few major areas where the Senate and House disagree. There’s concern among some Democrats that the House bill lifts too many bank regulatory barriers.

“We have a bipartisan bill with unanimous support in the Senate that will help build more housing and lower costs for the American people. I’m glad to see the House move forward on housing proposals,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee.

But, she said, “House Republicans should not hold housing relief hostage to push forward several bank deregulatory bills that will make our community banks more fragile while harming consumers, small businesses, and economic growth.”

Also having potential to stymie negotiations is the White House’s eagerness to ban institutional investors from buying single family homes. There’s not much congressional support for that idea.

Trump last month issued an executive order telling “key agencies to issue guidance preventing relevant Federal programs from approving, insuring, guaranteeing, securitizing, or facilitating sales of single-family homes to institutional investors.”

Staying upbeat

There’s still a sense in the Capitol that Republicans and Democrats will come together on a major housing bill, particularly since Congress and the White House agree on most key provisions and leading interest groups are helping push legislation forward.

The National Association of Realtors has been enthusiastic about the House and Senate bills. 

 “By addressing barriers at every level of government, the legislation will make it faster and cheaper to build new homes,” the organization said after the House passed the housing reform  bill. The Realtors had similar praise for the Senate version.

The Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition also liked the House bill, as CEO Emily Cadik called it “a set of common sense, bipartisan housing proposals that would increase the supply of affordable housing.”

Most in Washington who follow housing policy closely are upbeat about the legislation’s prospects.

“It’s all pretty positive stuff,” said Waters.

Then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at the Faith and Freedom Road to Majority conference at the Washington Hilton on June 24, 2023, in Washington, D.C. Trump spoke on a range of topics to an audience of conservative evangelical Christians. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Roughly one in three Americans are Christian nationalists or sympathetic to the cause, according to a new survey.

The survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, also found strong connections between support for Christian nationalism and support for the Republican Party and President Donald Trump in particular.

“I think the threat is (to) our democracy,” said Public Religion Research Institute CEO Melissa Deckman. “We found consistently that Christian nationalists tend to endorse more illiberal views in the sense that they’re more likely to embrace more authoritarian views, which can essentially be used to justify limiting access to the ballot for some people, or it can be used to use undemocratic means to stay in power.”

Most Christian nationalists want America to be a theocracy ruled explicitly by biblical principles, often interpreted through a fundamentalist lens. Many also think only Christians should be able to hold political office.

While the vast majority of Americans do not support Christian nationalist ideals, the survey found that about 11% of Americans are active Christian nationalists while another 21% are sympathizers. Researchers categorized most Americans – 64% – as either skeptics or rejecters of Christian nationalism.

“Long story short, far more Americans reject it than endorse it,” Deckman said in an interview. “But politically, why it’s so important to measure is that we now have a political party where you have prominent Christian nationalists in charge right within the Republican Party, whether it’s in the Trump administration, and, the executive branch, that really have disproportionate influence and folks like the speaker of the House is someone that would endorse this currently in Congress.”

Public Religion Research Institute survey finds strongest support for Christian nationalist views in people from the South

The findings were based on interviews with more than 22,000 adults conducted throughout 2025. 

The survey found that 56% of Republicans are adherents or supporters of Christian nationalism, compared to a quarter of independents and 17% of Democrats. It also found a correlation between support for Trump and support for Christian nationalism. Backers of the ideology were far more likely to express support for political violence than their fellow Americans.

The states that held the most Christian nationalist views are concentrated in the South. Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia and Oklahoma registered the highest support for the ideology. But ruby red Idaho has become a center for Christian nationalist thought, as the home of influential pastor Doug Wilson’s, whose Christ Church and connected national education and church networks have helped shape a generation of far-right leaders. Wilson has called for America to be run as an explicitly Christian nation.

 One Idaho pastor calls for faith leaders across the U.S. to push back

Idaho-based pastor and writer Ben Cremer said that school of thought should worry Americans.

“Every American would have their lives dictated by the set of beliefs by a single Christian sect, whether they aligned with those beliefs or not,” he said. “Given the patriarchy, supremacy, and racism intertwined with the current brand of Christian nationalism, you would see women losing the right to vote and ethnic and religious minorities sidelined and infringed upon.”

Cremer said it’s incumbent on faith leaders to push back on what he sees as a perversion of Christianity.

“First, Jesus called us to love our neighbors as our selves – that is part of his greatest commandment to us,” he said. “My neighbor is every human being. Christian nationalism is actively harming and dehumanizing so many of my neighbors and our planet. That is simply unacceptable. Secondly, it is carrying this harm out in the name of my sacred faith.”

Christian nationalism, until recently a fringe ideology, has been in the spotlight in recent years, as Donald Trump has become receptive to the movement’s ideas and even appointed some Christian nationalists to prominent positions. 

Trump’s Defense secretary nominee has close ties to Idaho Christian nationalists

For example, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is a member of one of Christ Church’s affiliates, sports Crusader tattoos and has broken down the separation of church and state in the military. Russ Vought, one of the architects of Project 2025 – a Christian nationalist blueprint for government – is Trump’s Office of Management and Budget director.

Deckman said if Americans want to see Christian nationalism banished to the fringes again, demographics are on their side.

“I guess the answer is … voting,” she said. “I think that you know this is something that’s not going to change overnight, necessarily. You know, younger Americans are more secular, they’re less likely to be conservative Christians. I think it’s just a matter of people voting right and getting enough people who are willing to challenge these kinds of viewpoints within the Republican Party.”

Correction: This story was updated at 9:45 a.m. Feb. 17, 2026, to correct the percentage of Americans who sympathize with Christian nationalist ideals. It’s 21%.

Protesters rally in downtown Milwaukee in May 2021 to show support for Palestinians living in Gaza. A bill to define antisemitism will go before the Wisconsin Assembly for a vote Tuesday. Supporters say it's necessary to differentiate between criticism of Israeli policy and anti-Jewish hate, but critics say it would conflate political speech with antisemitism. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Assembly will vote Tuesday on a bill that would define antisemitism and that has prompted deep divisions — including among Jewish leaders, who are found among both the supporters and opponents of the measure.

Proponents of the legislation contend it is needed to take a stand against a surge in antisemitic actions, on college campuses as well as in other contexts.

Critics, however, argue that the bill would criminalize political speech critical of Israeli actions, most recently in the ongoing conflict in Gaza — which has also divided the Jewish community.

The bill would codify in Wisconsin law a definition of antisemitism that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016.

The definition states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The IHRA has also published a list of bullet points as “contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere…”

The legislation, AB 446, requires local and state governmental agencies to consider the IHRA definition “including its examples” when investigating allegations of racial, religious or ethnic discrimination. Its Senate companion is SB 445.

The definition would also be used to determine “enhanced criminal penalties for criminal offenses” if a defendant is found to target a victim “because of the victim’s or group of victims’ actual or perceived race, religion, color, or national origin.”

The bill “doesn’t create any new criminal penalty or compel any legal proceeding to be initiated,” testified its Assembly author, Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison), at public hearings on the measure. “Rather, it provides a standard to be used in evaluating whether an alleged criminal act as provided for under current law was motivated by antisemitism.”

Both the IHRA’s examples and the bill’s criminal penalty language have become key points of criticism for the legislation’s opponents, however. Rabbis have testified both in favor of the legislation and against it.

“Nothing about this bill would prevent me, or anyone else, from rebuking Israel for its actions when conscience demands it,” said Rabbi Noah Chertkoff, who serves a congregation in the Milwaukee suburb of Fox Point, testifying in support of the bill at its Jan. 28 state Senate hearing.

At the same hearing, Rabbi Dena Feingold, the retired leader of a Kenosha congregation, called the IHRA definition “highly controversial and problematic in a number of respects” in her opposition testimony.

“It is far from universally accepted within the Jewish community, and many scholars and leaders have outright rejected it,” Feingold said.

The number of examples offered by the IHRA treating “anti-Israel rhetoric as antisemitism gives the impression that anti-Israel critics and protesters are by far the most likely sources of antisemitism in America,” Feingold added. “On the contrary, I believe that racists and white nationalists are the largest sources of antisemitism in this country.”

The legislation’s sponsor list is heavily Republican. A handful of Democrats in both chambers have signed on, but some have subsequently withdrawn their support.

At both the Assembly public hearing in October and the state Senate hearing in January, witnesses supporting the bill described increased antisemitic violence and actions, particularly since the massacre of more than 1,200 people in an attack on a music festival in Israel by the Palestinian political and military group Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023.

Ari Friedman, executive director of the Jewish Security Network, said at the January hearing that an audit by the Milwaukee Jewish Federation’s Jewish Community Relations Council found a 192% increase in antisemitic incidents in Wisconsin and similarly a national escalation in anti-Jewish hate crimes, according to the FBI.

The legislation “is not about suppressing free speech or political disagreement. Those rights are fundamental,” Friedman said. “But when expression crosses into harassment, intimidation and threats of violence directed at people because they are Jewish, it ceases to be abstract debate and becomes a public safety issue.”

The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism “explicitly does not criminalize speech,” testified the Jewish Community Relations Council’s chair, Jill Plavnick. “It provides clarity; helping schools, workplaces and courts recognize when hate crosses the line into discrimination.”

But Hannah Rosenthal, a former CEO of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation who served as a special envoy on global antisemitism during the Obama administration and also led the national Jewish Council for Public Affairs, testified in opposition to the bill in January, describing it as part of a Trump administration push to target critics of the administration’s Middle East policy.

She said the White House appears intent on using the IHRA definition of antisemitism “to identify individuals or organizations that disagree with the administration’s goal to fight any pro-Palestinian efforts as part of a Hamas network, and therefore antisemitic or even a terrorist.”

The IHRA definition “does include some very important examples of antisemitism,” Rosenthal testified. “But it is silent on conspiracy theories, the great replacement theory, white nationalism, Christian nationalism, deicide, blaming Jews for funding opposition efforts, and the like.”

(The “great replacement theory” is a conspiracy theory that “Jews and some Western elites are conspiring to replace white Americans and Europeans with people of non-European descent,” explained Rodney Coates, a Miami University professor, in a 2024 article for The Conversation.)

Advocates have pointed to language stating that the bill may not be construed to infringe on constitutional rights under the First Amendment or to conflict with federal or state antidiscrimination laws.

“It affirms that nothing in this bill may be used to infringe on free expression,” Chertkoff testified.

But Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, said that the bill incorporates the IHRA definition and its examples into Wisconsin’s antidiscrimination law — making what she called the “First Amendment savings clause” meaningless.

“Although the ACLU of Wisconsin appreciates the sentiment expressed by this provision, it cannot override the bill’s plain terms,” Merkwae said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A picture sits at a memorial to Alex Pretti on Jan. 25, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The FBI formally notified Minnesota officials on Friday that it would not grant them access to evidence from the investigation into the killing of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis, the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said on Monday.

The BCA has historically investigated shootings by law enforcement officials but has been blocked from participating in the investigations of federal immigration agents killing two Americans and shooting a Venezuelan national in three separate incidents in Minneapolis in January during “Operation Metro Surge.”

“While this lack of cooperation is concerning and unprecedented, the BCA is committed to thorough, independent and transparent investigations of these incidents, even if hampered by a lack of access to key information and evidence,” BCA Superintendent Drew Evans said in a statement.

When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good in her car on Jan. 7, BCA agents were on the scene collecting evidence as part of a joint investigation with the FBI. Then the U.S. Attorney’s Office “reversed course” and decided the investigation would be led solely by the FBI, Evans said at the time.

A week later, an ICE agent shot Julio Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan national, in the leg after a car chase with a different individual, whom agents had confused for someone else. The BCA were again on the scene then in north Minneapolis and collected evidence but the FBI told the BCA it would not share any results of its initial investigation.

A little over a week after that, a U.S. Border Patrol agent and a Customs and Border Protection officer shot and killed Alex Pretti on Jan. 24 as he was observing federal immigration agents in south Minneapolis. BCA agents responded at the request of the city of Minneapolis but were blocked from accessing the scene by personnel with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security despite having a judicial warrant.

In all three incidents, Department of Homeland Security officials made extraordinary statements about the victims. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described Good and Pretti as domestic terrorists within hours of their killings.

Homeland Security, in an official release, initially said Sosa-Celis and another man, Alfredo Aljorna, violently assaulted an officer leading the agent to fire a defensive shot. The Department of Justice has since dropped felony assault charges against the two men and is instead investigating two ICE officers for lying about the incident.

Public outrage over the Pretti killing appeared to pressure the Trump administration to consider allowing state officials to cooperate on the investigation. The Star Tribune reported that the BCA and FBI were close to announcing a deal on a joint investigation. Then the Trump administration pulled back, apparently because of a leak about the deal, Gov. Tim Walz said on Thursday.

Democratic leaders say the lack of local participation on independent investigations into the shootings compromises public trust.

In the Pretti killing, the Department of Homeland Security initially said it would take the lead on the investigation — essentially investigating itself — before the FBI took over. The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the killing.

The lack of cooperation with the state also hinders local prosecutors in weighing whether criminal charges against the agents are warranted, leading Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to begin collecting evidence themselves with the BCA.

The BCA is requesting anyone with information about the shootings of Pretti, Good or Sosa-Celis to contact them at 651-793-7000 or by email at bca.tips@state.mn.us.

Tristan Wright, founder and president of Lost Boy Cider, stands near his production line on Feb. 6, 2026, in Alexandria, Virginia. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Aluminum cans rolling off Virginia cider maker Tristan Wright’s production line cost more because of increased tariffs on aluminum.

Minnesota baby product inventor and seller Beth Benike ran out of inventory and lost income for months last year when President Donald Trump sparked a trade war with China.

Maryland dog apparel producer Barton O’Brien pulled the plug on a new line of Irish-style fisherman sweaters. Importing from his manufacturers in India became unfeasible.

Pennsylvania glass and ceramic decorator Walt Rowen worries about his tariff bill each time he replenishes stock.

“If there’s one thing that’s universal in business, no matter what you’re doing, it’s that stability and calmness create a positive market,” said Rowen, a third-generation owner of Susquehanna Glass Company in eastern Pennsylvania.

But many small business owners feel anything but calm since Trump began his whiplash trade policy shortly upon starting his second term. And now they are waiting on the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been mulling since November what was supposed to be an expedited opinion on whether large shares of the president’s unilateral emergency tariffs are legal. 

The Supreme Court is not scheduled to release opinions again until Feb. 20.

In a tariff impact survey to roughly 3,000 small business members from June to November 2025, the advocacy group Main Street Alliance found that 81.5% indicated they may raise prices to offset tariff costs, 41.7% reported they would delay business expansion and 31.5% said employee layoffs were likely if tariff rates remained unchanged. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated as of August that Trump’s tariff policies will cost America’s roughly 236,000 small businesses about $200 billion annually.

Tariffs are taxes paid by U.S. importers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection on goods purchased from abroad. 

Trump tariffs pass one-year mark

Trump began using the novel approach of imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, just over a year ago. 

As the first president to use the 1970s emergency statute to trigger import taxes, Trump slapped duties in February 2025 on products from Canada, Mexico and China, pointing to a crisis of illicit fentanyl smuggling. 

He next targeted global imports in April with a universal 10% import tax, adding varying “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from numerous trading partners — all due to his declared emergency on trade deficits.

A handful of small business owners, led by a New York-based wine and spirits importer, sued and won in two lower courts.

Trump appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted an expedited case.

The justices grilled the government and lawyers for the small businesses in early November on whether the president legally used the statute — which does not include the word tariffs — and if his presidential power extends to unilaterally upending trade policy.

The arguments attracted rare appearances in the courtroom from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other Cabinet members.

The case outcome will only apply to the import taxes the president imposed under his declared emergencies. Sectoral tariffs on imports on metals, critical minerals and pharmaceuticals, put in place by Trump because of national security concerns or unfair trade practices, will remain.

“We’ve been waiting on it. Nobody’s sure what really is going to happen — are they going to decide one way or another, and then what will happen?” Rowen said.

Rowen’s company, among other things, sandblasts and laser engraves glassware, mugs and tumblers found in winery tasting rooms, on restaurant tables and in university gift shops. 

“If they decide that the president’s policies are legal, then we’re stuck where we’re at. Potentially, he might become emboldened to do even more. If they decide that (he) can’t then what happens? What happens to all the money that’s already been set aside?” Rowen asked.

Trump promises on tariffs

The Trump administration hails the tariffs as a windfall for the country. He’s promised the customs duties collected from U.S. businesses and other importers will, in part, help the country crawl out of its nearly $39 trillion debt. 

Trump has also said tariffs will bring factories back to U.S. soil, provide for $2,000 dividend checks to taxpayers and even offset the cost of child care.

The import taxes pulled in $195 billion in 2025, up from $77 billion in 2024. 

So far for fiscal year 2026, which began Oct. 1, the government has earned about $118 billion in tariffs, according to the U.S. Treasury monthly statement through Jan 31, though the report does not delineate between emergency and sectoral tariffs.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates roughly 41% of tariffs collected last year were due to those imposed under IEEPA. The office projects if tariffs are left in place, revenue will jump to $418 billion in 2026 — exceeding corporate income tax receipts for the first time since the 1930s, a high-water mark for levies on imports.

Wright, founder and president of Lost Boy Cider in Alexandria, Virginia, said the administration is “literally banking the future of the country on the tariffs.”

“They don’t have another way of getting us out of this debt situation (and) you can point all the fingers you want over the last couple of decades,” he said.

While Wright has not had to directly pay tariffs, he’s shelled out more and more money for the aluminum cans that hold his specialty cider. China is, by far, the world’s largest aluminum producer.

“We work with a lot of people that purchase internationally because they can’t get the products here. And I understand it. You know, some point in five, 10,15 years from now, maybe we have 16 aluminum plants in the country. But you don’t just snap your fingers and, like, create an aluminum plant,” Wright told States Newsroom during an interview at his cidery.

Costs to households

Economists argue that while tariffs have raised revenue, they hurt the economy by shrinking business growth and reducing consumers’ purchasing power.

“You can’t do partial accounting. How much additional income growth and business income growth did you not get because of the tariffs?” Wayne Winegarden, an economist with the pro-growth Pacific Research Institute, told States Newsroom.

“If you wanted to raise taxes, there are ways of doing it that would be less obstructive to the economy than imposing tariffs,” he said.

The Tax Foundation estimates the president’s tariffs will cost households roughly $1,300 in 2026.

“If you have $100 to spend on groceries every week and the price of coffee goes up by like $5, your grocery budget doesn’t magically increase to $105 to pay for the higher coffee price. Instead, you’re forced to make trade-offs. If I want to buy the coffee, then that means I have $5 less to spend,” said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy for the think tank, which advocates for business growth.

O’Brien, owner of the Annapolis, Maryland-based Baydog company, said he boosted his inventory of woven collars manufactured in India and dog harnesses from China to get ahead of the tariff costs.

“I have been forced, as a business owner, to borrow money and tie up all that cash in product,” he said.

“If I look at other dog harness manufacturers, the prices have gone up everywhere. We have chosen not to raise prices, but to take that money out of our own pocket. So instead of everybody paying five bucks more for a dog harness, basically everyone at Baydog makes less money, myself included,” he said in an interview with States Newsroom.

Benike, who owns 15 patents for specialty baby products including silicone dining trays with attachments for toys and sippy cups, said she had to lay off her brother and forfeit her own paycheck last year.

The owner of Busy Baby told States Newsroom in an early February interview that she delayed a shipping container of her product from China’s Guangdong province, in case the Supreme Court ruled Trump’s emergency tariffs were illegal.

“I was holding off on shipping it until that decision was made, because the difference would have been $40,000 for me,” she said.

She had to pull the trigger in mid-January as the Supreme Court continued deliberating and she began running out of product.

“I have a container that should be sitting at the port. It should be clearing customs, hopefully, like as we speak, so I’ll have a tariff bill to pay,” Benike said.

The following day she emailed to say she didn’t realize Trump had lowered the fentanyl emergency tariff on China last year during negotiations. 

“​​So my final tariff ended up being 10% less than I expected. YAY!” she wrote.

The big ‘what if’

Shawn Phetteplace, national campaigns director for Main Street Alliance, said the advocacy organization is preparing to help its network of small business members if the Supreme Court strikes down the emergency tariffs. 

“My understanding is that the things that can be done to get people’s money back is either some type of class action lawsuit, so that it forces customs and government to essentially refund the dollars,” Phetteplace said in an interview with States Newsroom. “But that process will take quite a bit of time. The other option is for individual businesses to sue the government and to recoup those costs.”

O’Brien said of the delay, “The Supreme Court has proven they can issue decisions very quickly when they want to. Every day that goes by, they’re making the mess bigger.”

In a response to States Newsroom, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in an emailed statement, “President Trump promised to bring prosperity back to Main Street with an America First agenda that benefits every small business, just as he did in his first term.” 

“In addition to slashing regulations and lowering energy costs, the Trump administration signed the largest Working Families Tax Cut in history to unleash unprecedented growth for small businesses with a permanent 20% tax deduction and full expensing of equipment investments,” according to Rogers’ statement.

Oak Bluff Natural Area in Door County, which was protected by the Door County Land Trust using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds in 2023. (Photo by Kay McKinley)

The Wisconsin Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee voted to advance a Republican bill that would reauthorize the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship program with additional amendments Monday.

The bill, SB 685, passed the committee with 11 Republican votes. Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha), Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) and Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) voted against advancing the bill. In conjunction with SB 316, the bill would continue the program for an additional two years, but in a limited form.

“When we start to dismantle programs that have been in place for 30 years that were built on bipartisanship, I start to seriously have my doubts,” Andraca said. She added  that Republican lawmakers were willing to kill a popular program because of a state Supreme Court decision that removed their ability to anonymously veto particular projects. 

For many years, Wisconsin lawmakers exercised control over the Knowles-Nelson program through the Joint Finance Committee as members could anonymously object to any project and have it held up for an indeterminate time. That ended last year after the state Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that anonymous objections were unconstitutional. Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote for the majority that the statutes “encroach upon the governor’s constitutional mandate to execute the law.”

“This is not the best that you could do. This is the best that you chose to do,” Andraca said. “Killing a popular bipartisan program out of spite does not make a great bumper sticker, but it does make it a whole lot easier for your constituents to know where you stand on conservation.” 

The program is currently authorized at $33 million annually. The GOP bill will continue the program at a funding level of $28.25 million and limit land acquisitions for the two-year reauthorization period.

The Assembly passed its versions of the bills on a 53-44 party-line vote in January. 

The Senate Financial Institutions and Sporting Heritage Committee approved changes to the bills on Friday. The recent amendments in the Senate mean the bills will need to pass a vote in both houses of the Legislature. The Senate plans to meet for a floor session on Wednesday.

One recent change to the bill eliminates a requirement that land-acquisition grants to nonprofit conservation organizations only be used for land south of U.S. Highway 8. Another change specifies that provisions related to minor land acquisitions will only be effective in 2026-27 and 2027-28. Under the bill, the department will only be able to make “minor land acquisitions,” defined as parcels of land that are five acres or less in size and would improve access to hunting, fishing or trapping opportunities, or are contiguous to land already owned by the state.

During the two-year period, the DNR would need to conduct a survey of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program including an inventory of all land acquired with money. It would also have to report proposed project boundaries and land acquisition priorities for the next two to five years and proposed changes.

Another change in the amendments prohibits the DNR from acquiring land in 2026-27 and 2027-28 if it would result in more than 35% of the total acreage in a municipality being owned by the state, city, village, town or federal government, unless the municipality adopted a resolution approving the acquisition. That provision does not consider county-owned land in a given municipality.

Democrats wanted a more robust investment in the program. Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) proposed a bill that would dedicate $72 million to the stewardship program  and Gov. Tony Evers called for over $100 million for it in his budget.

The program, initially created in 1989, has allowed for state borrowing and spending for state land acquisition and for grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations with the goal of preserving wildlife habitat and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities throughout Wisconsin. It has traditionally had bipartisan support and has been reauthorized several times throughout its history, including last in 2021. 

The program’s funds will run out on June 30, 2026 if a reauthorization bill is not  signed into law. 

Bill coauthors Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), who are both members of the budget committee, were critical of Democrats.  

Kurtz said he supports conservation and said the bill had been “hijacked” by politics, including blaming the state Supreme Court decision for the current situation. He also preemptively blamed Democratic lawmakers for the potential end to the program. 

Kurtz said he “wasn’t crazy” about the process, but asked the Legislative Fiscal Bureau what percentage of projects were approved under the program even with the anonymous objector process in place. An LFB staffer said 93% submitted to JFC were approved. 

“93% that was submitted to the Joint Finance were approved — 93% — so basically, we’re bickering over 7% that you didn’t like,” Kurtz said.

Kurtz said there could also be other opportunities to acquire land by passing other bills. 

“If there’s a piece of land that comes up next to Devil’s Lake, and the DNR wants to buy it, and they come to me and say, ‘Hey, Rep. Kurtz, we didn’t get the money in this authorization, but this is an opportunity that we can expand Devil’s Lake’ — I will be the first one to jump on that bill, because I know how important it is,” Kurtz said. “So when people say that it’s only $28.25 [million] they need to start thinking outside the box… If this fails, this is on the doorsteps of the Democrats in the state of Wisconsin, period, and I will sing that every day, 24/7, 365,” Kurtz said. 

Johnson pushed back on Kurtz’s comment, noting that Republican lawmakers currently hold the majority in the state Senate and Assembly. 

“[That] ultimately means that you can do whatever you want,” Johnson said, adding that she was confused by the Republican lawmakers trying to pass blame to Democrats. 

Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) commented that Evers will need to sign the bills for them to become law. 

“This notion that this is somehow going to kill the program. That’s not accurate. We’re trying to save it because there are those of us up here who value conservation,” Testin said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE